1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant awarded a contract to LSS Design Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “LSP”) for part of the interior works of the interior works of the Namnam datum located in Namwon-si. The non-party company awarded the said construction works to the Plaintiff.

B. On January 15, 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the purport that “The Plaintiff is a direct claimant based on the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and thus, the Plaintiff shall pay the unpaid construction cost of KRW 118,840,00 to the Plaintiff,” and the same year.

1. Around 22. Around the same day, as a creditor of the non-party company, a claim for the payment of the accrued construction cost against the non-party company against the defendant of the non-party company was provisionally seized.

C. On July 25, 2013, the Defendant deposited the total amount of the said construction payment with the Seoul Central District Court (15381), which held that the deposited person was “foreign company, A, C, or D,” and that “the Plaintiff may not confirm the creditor without fault due to the claim provisional attachment, and the demand for direct payment of the subcontractor’s obligation against the non-party company, although the Plaintiff was in KRW 179,380,00,00,” and that “the Defendant deposited the total amount of the said construction payment with the Seoul Central District Court (the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as the right of direct payment under the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act and entered the same as the provisional attachment in the fact of the cause of deposit without recognizing the Plaintiff as the right of direct payment under the Act on Fair Transactions in Subcontracting). Accordingly, the distribution procedure was commenced to the Seoul Central District Court E, and on November 25, 2016, the distribution schedule was prepared as shown in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was negligent in omitting the Plaintiff, who was the direct right holder, in depositing the construction cost as seen earlier, from the deposited parties, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the status of the right holder to claim the payment of deposit money.